UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-96-43)

Submitted:

January 28, 2005

Decided:

February 18, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district courts order construing his petition for a writ of
error

coram

nobis

filed

under

the

All

Writs

Act,

28

U.S.C.

1651(a) (2000), as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.

2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); see

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

2253(c)(2)

demonstrating
constitutional

(2000).
that

prisoner

reasonable

claims

are

satisfies

jurists

debatable

this

would

and

that

28 U.S.C.
standard

find
any

that

by
his

dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite
showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED